Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"Scott McClellan... said Bush resolved to support an amendment after a process that involved consulting with constitutional scholars, theologians, religious leaders and others. McClellan said Bush didn't reach a final determination until shortly before his speech."

He is just reading from the stem cell research script.

You have to feel sorry for Scott McClellan. While clearly dedicated to the cause, his poor little heart just isn't up to lying through his teeth on national TV. He always comes off very insincere and out of his element.

Coming as he did after the magnificent performance of Ari Fleischer, to whom no actor in hollywood holds a candle. Ari could stand up there and argue for the flat earth society, and in the process sound so convinced and convincing that nobody else would be able to get a word in edgewise. But knowing that he was lying gave you that gut feeling of antipathy that one could experience in the old days, that feeling of- wow, this could evolve into a anticonstitutional coup at any moment.

Scott gives you more of 'we are a bunch of mayberry machiavellis who really don't have a clue and would be harmless if it wasn't for our fanatical religious views' sort of a feeling.

No one fleisched people like Ari, its true.

But the battle against equal marriage is over, the econonomics of it are compelling, particularly in areas which are hard hit by the tech bust.

I've decided that I don't have to feel sorry for Mr. McClellan. He's a punk working for punks. The sooner we see the back of the lot of them, the better.

70% of the publik believes that W is an honest, amiable, likeable guy. Any contradiction like this is due to underlings screwing up.

That's the system, and so far it works. Why would you expect them to change it?

Is there a net gain to this or any administration in sending these Press Secs out to lie day after day? One would think the corrosive affect would be obvious.

I blame the Musgrave women, descended from a bunch of Norman thugs.

The language of the Musgrave draft is so broad that it clearly invalidates state laws providing for "civil unions" or "domestic partnership". It could well invalidate a will by one same-sex partner leaving property to the other, because this could be interpreted as trying to have an "incident of marriage". Hateful, indeed.

That's what Andrew Sullivan says about it too, Roger. (By the way, Bob Barr opposes it in a current interview on the MSNBC site because he thinks the matter should be left up to individual states. Tom DeLay, Orrin Hatch and Sen. George Allen are merely seriously uneasy about it.)

Let the religious war begin! With a little luck, thanks to Mel, we may even be able to stir resurgent anti-Semitism into the mix.

Reminds me of when, before the war "in" Iraq, GWB said he was still making up his mind as to whether or not to go war. Yeah, yeah. Is he also making up his mind about rounding up Bin Laden & co. or does Karl Kove think that it is a smart strategy to scare Kerry out of questionning Dubya about his performance on the war on terra? Or are they really holding on capturing the people who killed 2000 Americans for political purposes? If so, I really hope the GOP regrets this decision for decades because I can hardly think of a more immoral way to bank on the 9-11 suffering than that. New Yorkers unite! I know, I am preaching to the choir...

Ah, somebody else noticed! I find it hard to believe that Bush couldn't have kicked the drive to capture Bin Laden into its current suddenly-higher gear earlier, had he really wanted to -- which means that he really wants to now simply because Bin Laden's capture is the only possible remaining rabbit he may be able to pull out of his hat before Election Day. This is the strongest piece of evidence yet that Karl Rove really IS determining our basic foreign policy. If so, the remaining question is what kind of deal he made with Musharraf -- or what kind of pressure he put on him -- for the latter to start allowing us to do it.

"...the remaining question is what kind of deal he made with Musharraf..."

I mean, of course, what kind of deal Bush, not Karl Rove, made with Musharraf. I have no doubt that Rove usually tells Bush what to do, but I rather doubt that Rove (directly) tells Musharraf what to do.

If this is true, it is far far worse than having the press flack lie about it. All the majore news stories said that the administration's perferred amendment would allow civil unions. When you checked the actual language, it was a much vaguer promise to allow the states to decide on... something or other... short of marriage for gays. So it seems to me to be another attempt at a nasty bait and switch move by the administration, the goal being to cynically mislead large sections of the public into supporting a measure that would be more extreme that they probably would want.

Read the second sentence. Buried in the middle of the verbiate is the operative word "construe". It doesn't say who is the agent doing the "construing", so it extends to any public official, judge or executive. And the subject matter is any federal or state law or constitutional provision. And it extends to "incidents of marriage". That means that all laws recognizing civil unions are retroactively voided.

It's currently possible for a same-sex couple to cobble together some of the legal advantages of marriages with powers of attorney, wills, etc. But these could be interpreted as an unlawful attempt to gain "incidents of marriage". Anyone who might want to challenge the will would have ammunition in this amendment.